0

ED 154 3$5v

AOTBOR.-.4TITLE -

° POD DATENOTE

BOBS PRICEDEStRITARS

DOCUBIlli gamma

CS 204 102- ,

Killer., Bruce; gystrand, gartinThe Language Trap. 4T/4)16p.; Reproduced fro' best copy available.

AP-50.83 Plus Postehe. pc get k4ailable fio EMS.Cloze Procedure; Cosmnplbation (Tfiraat Transfer;&Communication Probleas; *Cosaunication Skills;*Composition Skills (Literary); Educational Viends;.Elementary Secon3ary Education; *English' Instruction;*Evalulltion,Criterimp/nteraction; Language Arts;`Verbal Communication ,

ABSTRACTThe swiiging of the educational pendulum, in p

English-fro a disillusionment with teaching grammar *13 the 1960s tothe romance with thi basics* in the 1970s reveals the failure /ofEnglish teachers to come to grips with languge and learning. This .

failure ilAue lamgely to a prevailing orientatim toward the study '_' of language as an object, rather than as a Coaapflcative Ordcess. An

investigation-of students' writing competence was coniiicted throUg4assessing adult readers' ability to 'respond__ to cicxed samples of tie.students', writing. The gnvestigation began with 0 examination of thepieces of writing.as oOjects and the development cf an elabotatetaxaonomy of textual etrors; this approach proved inadequate andindefensible,-however, and the investigatQts shifted toan analysisof the text as part of a cotaunicative, interactional process withthe reader. Basic distortions of the textual spate between writer andreader were distinguished, and good written comsunicatcn was definedand assessed as iriting that relevant' readers can understand. (Aclozed student .writipg sample, adult-responses to iip a portion ofthcsTaxonosy of gritten:.Coaaunicative Risconstraints0" and the',Typology of Textual Space Distortions" are include l.) (00'

********************************i********4*****************************Reproductions supplied' by IDES are the best that can be wade

fro the original docdment. .**************e*** ************410001410011111*****14444**4101111144144,4111441111114***

he

CC)

%ENr-4

.

La

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

U $ IMPARTMENT OP 14 ALTN.SOUCATOON WOLF RS ,NATtORAL INSTiTU OP

OrSOLKSTiON

TOUS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN, REPRO-CH.00ED EXACTLY AS RECEWED Clem?NE 1.1E0114; 0* blOGAU ZA Todd ORIGIN-ATING IT 'NTS Oc VIE* OR OPINIONSSTATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY EINIESENT OFF ictL NATIONAL eta. yoYvya OcEDUCAT'008 POSITION OR POLICY . ..

The Language Trap.

Bruce Millar and Martin-Nystrand*

'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLYHAS BEEN GRANTEDBY

.Bruce Millar

Martin Nystrand

TO THE EDUCATIONAL REIOURCEt1NFORMATi9N CENTER ;ERIC, AND

- USERS OF THE ERfC SYSTEM

110

Sometimes while driving, I have wondered why the rules of

t the road and their mastery are rarely matters of contrmyersy, while

,conventions of the 'written la'nguage And their learning often are.

4

, No matter how many new traffic sdgns are introduced, I've never

hearid members of the lounger generation complaining that traffic

Jconventions are "stuffy" or "old hat." Nor, come to think of it,

have I ever heard members of the'older generation compilaining that.

today's kids can't yield or stop as well as they used.to. Everyone

I know thinks that stopping for ared light 100% of the time without **

error is unquestionably desirable.

Language matters aren't like this, though. Neither is teaching

writing. Unlike drivers, we must contend in education, or

so it would seem, with an ancient and omnipresent tngineknown

colloquially as The Pendulum. With credentials as impressive as

those of Father Time, The Pendulum swings steadily on and presumably

will swing forever in education like some -great self-windenk clock

Bruce Millar is a psychOlinguist trained dt the University of Alberta,and a'former consultant to the Language Arts Assessmeht Project of theTrent Valley Centre, The Ontario Institute fotStudies in Education,

iPeterbor4ough, Ontario. Martin Nystrand, is an Assistant Profesor ofEnglish at the ,University of Illinois at Cicago Circle, and is the

: Ontario InstitLite Aorformer Director_of the Project in Peterborough. Both are contributorsto Langugge as a Way of Khowing (Toronto

'o ° .Studies in Education; 1997):

3,

'P 2 ft

.4;

2

Ar".ticking'away in the bowels of the earth itself. We can almost hear

Prefessot Higgins lamenting what many today feekl, Why can't English

be.more like the roads?

. .. Consider the last ten years of English teaching. Picture

t0

fii,.

ir

41I0

r-. . ..

N, yourielf in the teachers' lounge in the late '60s. If you were,

( . :,

prudent. in th ose days, you knew that,Warriner:s Compl& Course in

Composition was a reactionary little tract, an nme.ntionable.which,

indays of yoie when it was.usea, treated kids to overdoses of the

trivial and he mechanical--the pedestrian and truly unimportant

--aspects of writing:1. Writing conventions were particularly weer-el-it

wasnotat, and there was reason to suspect that they were even in

basic conflict with the essence of language itself. If, as %n

En glish teacher, you, stressed the differences between who and whom.

lax and lie, its and it's--or God_fOrbid, you-actually used W2criner=s

in .those years when college kids got shot'.and cities burned, you

probably kept big secret and putthe Book away ill a closet

when your student teacher's superviSor cape around to visit from

: the local ivory tower. Then you knew the consumate 'wisdom of speaking

of "persod4I experience," "growth," "journal Weeping," "crefivity,"

"re.sponse Lir terawre," and--that most magic of words--"Dartmouth."

moving when to whi'sPer " tartmouth" could open:a lot of doors.: You

..- talkeis:oi these things, you did--prarticu`larlY if you wanted any friends .,'a,..... ., ,

.t,

. early, In the morning o er coffee. :N._.

i. t

Today onecan _scarcely pick up a newspaper or magazine, get.., . _ . .

.through a'Veek of teleylsion, or sit through an Tvening pf Ptett ?without

s .%

r

40'3

r,

t

X

A

`

i

being alerted Ca tiri"obvicus

fact" that Johnny (and'all of Frs.

I/ . .,

too, too many,f ends) can't' ;rite, meaning-that Johnny (and don't*

.

forget Mary) doesn't-give a damn, even if he knows how, about anyJ

\of the genuinely trafficky aspects of Englishcommas, periods,

. .

)1spe4 ling, the works. And Warrinees--that time-tested giver of the.

rules of the written road--has returned again to front center shelf.'

_

-111, lot of_people have'found.it!

. 4Asd_io the'pendulum has swung in the '70s. Right? Times

have changed, and we've changed too. They'.11 change again, and

we'll be ready then too. We're a resilient bunch, we are,. If we'rea/r-N

truly sahrt, we'fi put away or old copies of books by the Jarring.

,Johns (Diey, Dixon, and HoIf) in plain bro'wm wrappers and keep'them

safe, in the same way that we should know to haft on. to `all our old, ,

=

fie; 4d Skirts. After all, today's romadce with'the Basics is no_thing-

more thawr emediation for the excessive '60s,,,whiCh were nothing more

than redress for the mediocre '50s . tight? In. thepopula.r"

view, s wings of-the Great Pendulum are not only inevitable;. they are-

. .

healthy for the profession because they eliminate extremes, tnd excesses,. .r P

and result in balances educatioflal prdgrams, -AO thatss;progress.

,pAs researchers and educators,'we wotildf4kv"to suggest anlb

.

alternative !interpretation, naniely4,at continued pendulum su4nging

in English education and language.itudies is mare tftn.inything

testimony to a continuing failure ro cow grips with language and-

lialesrgring,in,short,, tow well- established nuity of wrong qUesiions.-

'In this sense, pepolic change in English'edUcatiop is more the stuff

4

It

6 4 -

'. I

of trendiness than genuine.progesS or improved understanding.

4141The difftoulties ale due in large measure to a Oevailing

-

orientation toward language itself.. As long ago as 1916, thetather'

Of.modern Linguistics Ferdiband dee.SaussUre made his .classic distinction

'between la,lisngue, or language, and slaparfole, or t. e use of language,. . 1

Als

speaking. Language quickly opted to study ehe fumeilt

P.'

leaving largely unexamined ape relationships between speakers and

their language. Important scholars such as Saussuire, Cassirer,

.

Bloomfield, Jespersen, LgviStrauts., and Chomsky all have come to

1Ge known essentially for their semina ideas regarding la langue,

not la parole. This predilection for la'langue has been enormously

consequential, .not only for what it has included and clarified, but

also for what it has excluded.

Essentially language has been treated as an object,, both

. academically and pedagogically. The historical and contemporary

prominence of this focus is. clear, fbr example, in curriculum,

instruction, and evaluation in he language arts.' In large measure,

this emphasis accounts for a perennial obsession with formal grammaf

instruction (including Momsky's transformationgenerative), the

effectiveness of which researchers perennially repudiate (for the

latest examination of the effectiveness of forml grammar instruction,. .

see Research in the Teaching of English,-Spring 1976); for a typical

(and truly bizarre) insistence on treatpg, teaching, and evaluating

"writing" as "a thing rather than a meaningful, communicative act

ti

5

. bet4en a writer and a reader. Above all, this focus has cowhed the

curriculumioncerns of the language arts in terms of the DreemptivE.-

question; "What is English'?" rather than "WhatNiv appropriate activity

in an English classroom ?"

own' experience with tee Language.Trap4 as we have come to

tcall this focus on language as an object, came about-at a result of

nearlytWo,years"work in developing tests of literacy at the Ontario.

s

Institute lor Studies in.Education. In dealing with writing we cameet.

.to adopt the-following tenets which seemed.defensible enough:

.

. a) Writing is an activity

-

b) Readinvis an activity

The mature writer can effectively assess the needs'of

relevant read ers

d) Therefore, writing is a communicative act that takes lace

between two people.

The final point servedin effect.as a summary pf the lirst three,

emphasizing the character of copmunication as a process or activity,

as.werl as the necessity to account for the reader involvement orams.

p.

attention.

'After much debaie, confusion and discussion, e concluded that

good written communication could be defined, and ass sed, as piriting, . / .

.

-,which. relevant readers can understand. Good writing ould.,not ..

N

satisfactorily be charictieriztd as a'iormulaic-object coompanied 'byl # 1.'

slipshod prescriptionS:regarding introductory paragraph , topic. . . _

je

..

.

sentences, punciuit ion,,ruu-ons, and 'the like. Rather., riteria for

.

.

(i.

gdOd written cosioUnication were more adequately (and pars moniously)

. a

r

4

=

. a'stated with iespect to the intended readership's' facility for

:

accessing the writIF's intended'meaning: Frank Smith's (Undesstanding. ...

.

. N .

Reading; Compeehension and Learning) model.o0f comprehension as

hypothesistesting was enlightening on thv role of the reader in tAis- - ,

,process, and Our investigations proceeded by cloting writing samples

(deleting approximately Avery 5tp

word) A4 administering them as read.

111

abpity tests tb.intended\eaders, whose scores were then.takem tor*4

beawn the communicative Competence of the writer. In this way, we

arrived at the position of modeling - writing -at'an interOctive 'process,

and used the cloze, procedure as an index of its success.' Figures 1 and

2 are' examplee06f the proce4ures involved.

Figures r and,2 about here.

In preltminary'trials, a number of ninth grade papers written for

a general adult audience were clozed and presented tb a group, of teachers 1who,were requested to fill in the blahks. d&in papers were mote

.difficult than others. A systematiclonalysis of'the discrepancies between

deleted wr.ktersi words and reader guesIgs was performed in

.

attempts to

Itaccount for writing problems It was at this point that we began tofallN

1

headlong into the Languag ap.1.

1In accounting for the ;discrepancies, -we came increasingly to %.7 40'44'

4.4orient ourselves to the pieces of writing as objects. We studied the

in detail, even to the point ofqdbeession. We began to dptect, or so

we thought, objective criteria that might define thestructuial form

461

,

ar

- 7

a

4

of trie,essays and nothing elsp. -In effect, we were forget.ting 4

about.prqcess and interaction; which had been so insightful at the ,

start. 'Here is part of- what we

'Communicative Misconstraints:

S

g

Ng

rated, the-Taxonomyof Written

A

Pirate 3 here )111.-

The taxonomy fell through. Teachers and researchers were very

'creative ip inventing accounts for faults in student writing; and

'particularly fn ,labeling these faults. The list of "errors" seemed

interminable, and'the taxonomy beaame ornate to'the point!of oque.

As much as any other factor, its sheer 'weight and complexity caused

.

it to go the way of all dinOsaurs..

This taxonomy of errors based,on characteristics of, the text

gave way to an analysis of reader interactions with the te*t. -The

,sreader was reintroduced intovr considerations of writing, and

emphasis reverted once again from the text-as-object to the text as *,

part of a communicative, interactional process. In reorganizing

triter- reader discrepancies according to an analysis of interactions

rather ,than textual faultsrsimple patterns-emerged,. T4ree,basic

impediments to written communicatiod were distinguished as follows:

a) Misconstrainta "Wadya mean? That pesn't go wit 1.1 that!"

In psycholinguistic terms, a misconstraint involves thepresence of cueing systems which lead to confirmation oraberrant predictions on the part of the readgr.

8

.

4

c.

. ,

.11

bi Impaction: "Huh? Hold on a minute. Y o'lost me.Whydya wannt put that with that ? "

In psy cholingvistic terms,. impaction is a dense compoundingof cueing systems resulting in4readers' inabilities todiscern significant difierences and regularities for-

_ purposes of prediction. It is /formation bvvioad.

c) Rarefdction: "Alright already. Quit beating around thebush: Get to the point."

---2In psycholinguisric terms, rarefaction. involves the,inadequate presence.of relevant cueing systems, resultingin readers' inabilities adequately.to.confiri predietiebsnecessary to comprehension.

A full typology of Distoryions of Textual pace foLlows at th e,

,To sum up, our initial investigation ofwriting.began with the

assumption that assessment involved an examination of the text for

strengths and weaknesses intthetext:

Figure Normal Model of Writing Assessment'

/°....

.

. ,

.

0 4

N..

'Asseseisent

. .

''.7.

.

Fibpding this approach inadequate and indefens ible, we shifted ouv.

.

ground and introduced the notion that many of the salient factorsN., . _/

.., . .

-of written communication, and mapy of the criteria of good writing

lie, not in the, text. per se, but rather injthe Interaction between

between the reader and the text. We calNd ittextual space:

9

r J

't

4

4

9,Figure Re'ised Model'of Writing Assessment

eT x t. [Textual Space] Reader

.

Assessment

In exploring thisrevised model, Our attempts to account for

distortions of this textual spaoef or communication glitcfes, unwittingly

and inevitably gave,way to an analysis of the text, with the creation

of the elaborate taxonomy which persistently Pinned the blame on the'

writer at the point of the text. By focuiaing so hard on what we

'lought to understand, we were drawn away from the functions,of

et 'text11 guage and intb the 'text itself. Focussing" language as object,'1.

cwe had fallen straight-into the Laneage;Trap..

In retrospeot, the need for compatibility between model and.

;

method-of investigatiorl seears obvious. Clearly, if Writing is to be

cOnsidered-an interactional process; erroos'in writing need be

sAdied in terms 'et distortions.of that proces %. While it playg an

imertantIole in' the writing process, the text:is mainly instrumental r

art& subordinate to. the readerwriter interaction that characterizes

the process itself).-

The results of this research do nd,t lend support to the useful

ness .

ness of models or exemplary texts -in the,

teaching of writing.

7-10 I

*1.

- 10 -

)

- ..Rather, support:is fouri d for's6-essing the role of audience, or

more precisely, the necessity of the writer's internalization of

,3

Alitthe role of the Othez vis-A-#iswriting. The Significant Other

for the writer is, in short, the%..

reader; In addition to our own

research, 1.4e take as authorities on-this point George)Herbert Mead

(Mind, Self, and Society), Peter Berger and Thomas LuckMann (The

Social Construction of Reality), Wes Moffett (Teaching the Universe

Discourse), and James Britton ,(Language and Flan-ing; Theftevelop-.

ment of Writing Abilities: 11-18). Teachers would do well to help

learners become aware that they are writing for others particular

others, and that their. readers can be confused,Omd, frustrated with

`-

their resulting texts in three basic ways as we,have outlined them.

In this process of socialization with respect to writing, children

need to orient themselves less to lariguage per se ( la langue), and

more to the requirements of .theitommunicative situation itself,

becoming increasingly sensitive to,what is involved in successful

communication. Ideally everyOne will get the point.

- )

a le.

I

Figure 1.

.Cloeed Writing Sample:

CloAed Writing_Sample

4

16pI

4

I

. ,. ,

TOPIC: Does the Goverhmene Haye tieImpose Lees

a

ill; fot Our Own Protection*)'

Yes, I` -.

.

Hi'ght to

.

':

a,think

think

okay"out

1-for

not

seatbeltuse .

said

mapywhere

flawsabout

,

that the laws are'

'The people t,hpt putsthe laws ts are doing i

h.us. to help us,, .6to hurt os: The

srnce they made us4 my sisterThat there isn't,sphead -injuries on V-2she is nursing. And the .

hasn'.t come oui yetdeath penalty twtrI

they should, because 1there wont be so

' crime. I alsO think thecouldbe hardet op thethat steal: kill andAnd the law forover.60 on the ______,that is tous' to save

But I am justperson with myana it might hethen my friends,.famrlyand

'-you judps. I belNeall laws, sope evep.

1N7people

°rapes

1

crazy bud,. what thereis'-for us.

4Q4

helpgas

One

icceas

differe.nt

maybe

sounds

doing

tI'

12

4

4

. I

ei

ti

! .,. .

Figdie' 2. Adult Responses to Crazed Writing Sample.., .

Mutt Responses to-Clozcd Writing S p 1

tw

1 Yes, 1 think a2 that the laws.ace.00kay (2 ; right; 3 alright)3 The people that puts (3 down; 2 on; together; forth)4% the laws are doing it for (3 to)5 us to help us, not6. to hurt us: The seat -belt

,,--

-%.7 law, since theyLmade us use (6 wear; okay; db)8 it my sister, said (4 says; knows; feels)

'17' 9" that there isn't so many.$ ,

:'-i

;10 head injuries on U-2 where (because)

, .

11 she is nursing. And the laws (6 law; 'Cision; government;.

12 hasn't tome out yet about (against; o , 2 for; ---) police)13 desth penalty but I think14 they should, because I think (know) ,qh

15 there won't be so . (Many)16 crime. I also think the OPP's (police; 7i lard.1).3 laws; courts).17 could be harder on the people (criminals; kids)

.

18' that ;teal, kill and rapes. i(L---; 6 rape; 2 rOb; speed)19 And the law for going ' (3 driving; speed; 4 speeding)20 over 60 o6 the 401 (6 highway; highways; )

21_ that is to.help (2 make)22 us. to save RAE. 4 lives ourselves; money)23 But 1 am, just one24 petsdn vial my We (10 opinions)25 endii might be different (that; wrong; alright; better)

;ihan my, friends, family and maybe. (teachers; others; also;27 you judges. 1 belive in (5 that) police; ale; even)`2.85all laws:lkoine even sounds . (4 are; slightly;, so; maybe; 12 is;29 crazy but, what there doing _ 2 are; for)30 is for us.

. ,'

.

I

.

ti

/

4.

/NI

. S.13

I

. irigure' 3. Taxonomy of tiisconstraints (Contextual Misconstraints)

a. interpositionai: ,unanticipated;intrusion in a predicted

Om,

a

%-

The people in the bac hit the,froaseat.and what do you knowsome of the people broken noses.

b. irreplete: rarefaction of cueing systems resulting in informationloss '(the opposite of impaction):

The Government aibags has good in mind but it often inforces laWsthat dbn't please a,lot of ptople. For instance the (driver)legislations'; Canadians ace very.upset'at the number of peoplewho have been killed or very badly injured because' of the seat-belts. Also the laws have been 'changed. too many times . . . .

(seatbelt) /

c. disjunction: reparedshift in an ikpected,.prig irtted lineaLty:

tPamgraph o eatbelts concludes) . . . I;think,that thewill get used to these new laws, and peopqi will

see the laws the government put out are for our protection.(snowmgbiers)

d. antecede : miscue resulring from a prior semantic, lexicalambituigy:

.I,111..think the...law did har.,e'our good in mind wheh they inforced

,speed limit laws, and raised the drinking apd smoking ages.They ( ) that the laws'would decrease the number ofteenage smokers . . . . (felt)._

e% abortive modulate: unpredictedshirt in an unanticipated'linearity, which detracts from tlje reader's sense of reliabilitywith respect to predictability w in, the discourse in question.

' (Paragraph develops idea that legislators do not always considerthe full implications, of their propositions before passing them.Paragraph ends)',... . Canadlans'are _very upset at the number

. people who have been killed ore eery badly injured becausR ofseatbelts. Also, the laws have. been (ignored) too'many tines,from all (passengers); to no belts for children, to no sh4ulderbelts if they are not connected. 4 4ind".it very sickening.(changed); (belts) 11%.. ,

TIP

14

TYPOLOGY OF TEXTUAL SPACE DISTORTIONS

Distortion Type

t

Level ofAnsIySis

A. MISOQ::STRAINT . B. IMPACTION C. RAREFACTION .

_

I.

LRAPHIC !

,

I.A. GRAPHIC MISCONSTRAINT

t)f )11(1.1-".... for P 0 lly,77nand

.

r

II. B. GRAPHIC IMPAGTIOg4 --

.for let *

i

)

I.C. GRA.P.::IC RAREFACTIT,'

_

H R E-

,

.

. ...; li

II.

Sr:TACTIC

,

II.A.- siwAcrIc MISC0.7.37R'T

Your .4going to het

II.B. ST."21CTIC IMPACTIOI..

. his is the preacter all shavenand shqrn that Married the man alltattered and tarn that kissed...in,the house that Jr..,:;1 buiZt.

II.C. ST:TAT:IC RAJIETACTIC::

.

when I stoppe nderingter..pra y \\

where your. , 'pith a

seatbelt on.

(stil1)(7oino)

III:

LEXICAL 4

'I

'ILA. LEXICAL MISCOSTR'T1

on[The /aw irontroiOing3

for

drinking is for your ownsafetj (c7ainst)]

. . . I

..III.B. LEXICAL I,ZPACTIGH

[Concepts and the lan7uage thatinfuses and- implements them give

power and strategy to cognitiveactivity] to most people.

.

.

III.C-. LEZ:CAL .RAREFACTION

.

We define wtiona/ intere:ss asinterrdll generatqd and out rd

flowing forces from within'any,country which bind that country,in sore ctrJ.ct..:red way to ano:he,

country..i.

.

written to adults L

A .

IV.

CONTEXTUAL

.

1 7,

IV.A. CO::TEXTUAL MISCS'T4

Paragraph on seatbelts ends:

I think that the will

IV.B. CO::TEXTIJAL .P.TACTIO.1

.

For most people:

[EPocht is the suspension ofSelief in the ontologkcal-

.

characteristics of experiencedobjects (Schutz, 978, p 317),jwith no further discussion.

-

IV.C. CZTEXI7jAL RAREFACTIO. t

This, , law is for our'.

protec:ton. Let's say vu. aredriving along and a dog runsacross the rbad in front of your". The peopl,e in thefrtntare going to go throdoh the .

`vindshield". . .. (seatbeitY

get used.to these new law,and people will see the lawsthe government put out arefor cur protection.

, (snowm.obilersP